A moral situation

[Silver]

Lately on television I have noticed an increase in favoring a particular stance.

The basic premise is having to do something wrong in order to do something right.

Is it morally ethical to do something wrong in order to ensure that something right is accomplished in the end? Would you ever do something wrong in order to do something right?

[mediocrates]

This depends greatly on the 'somethings' involved...

If I have to steal a first aid kit to save a life... fine

[brewer]

Apparently I need to come over and pound some sense into you before you hurt yourself or others.

[Catholic_Lady]

In Catholicism we call it "double effect."

Killing an instigator for self defense falls under this category as well. As does stealing in an emergency situation to save someone's life.

[brewer]

In Catholicism we call it "double effect."

Killing an instigator for self defense falls under this category as well. As does stealing in an emergency situation to save someone's life.

Now I have two people to pound, sigh.

[Shell B]

I mean, if you murder people and use them as compost for your garden, no. I mean, your plants will be great, which is right, but you'll still be a murderer.

I think these kind of moral discussions are so obvious that it baffles me we have so many on the forum. It's not that I think the discussion is stupid or are insulting you for starting it, I just don't understand how right and wrong is not just understood.

[Aoi Magi]

Right and wrong can be a matter of perspective as well. So I don't think there's a definite answer to your question, rather it's more situational. Ends don't always justify the means, but sometimes they do.

[Angrboda]

Kant argued that you should ALWAYS obey your moral imperatives. I think that's going too far, but I wouldn't want to start multiplying exceptions. Regardless of the motive, you are still responsible for the wrong you do.

[Catholic_Lady]

I dont think its so much that ppl dont understand right and wrong. Its just interesting to talk about *why* certain things are right and wrong.

A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. That the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. That there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

It seems the example of the compost doesn't fall under #1 #3 and #4, which is why we know it's not permissible. We instinctively know this when it comes to the big, obvious things like your example, but when dealing with more extreme, difficult moral situations , the list can be a helpful guideline.

[Shell B]

We come across the more subtle moral situations much more often than the more dire situations in day-to-day life. In my experience, it doesn't require a checklist or that much thought. Of course, that's fine as an effort in philosophy, but my gut does the job just fine.